There's nothing wrong with "learn to code". It's teaching a mental discipline and the rudiments of logic.

There are 2 broad ways that the classical school curriculum teaches mental discipline and logical thinking. The first and slightly older one is philosophy/humanities. Reading and debating the old philosophers sharpens the mind and exposes kids to logical patterns. Arguments attacking and defending religion (eg scholasticism) are especially good for that approach today, as they have always been.The second way is geometry (not just Mathematics). Euclid is the tried and true source of exercises and teaching logic with visual aids. These are the O.G. methods which matter even today.

Computer programming is a modern variant which teaches logic by requiring kids to create something in a world of pure abstractions. It shares with geometry a good balance of logic, experimentation and abstraction.

The most valuable gift a child needs for the future is a good training in using its brain. Someone with logical thinking skills can find a way to thrive in any environment, and there are only a small number of ways to train a young brain to master those skills, which I've listed above, more or less.

What is emphatically bad is to connect a young brain to an AI. That teaches the brain a variant of logically fallacious skills which can be summarized by the phrase "argument from authority". Those skills will not produce a person who can thrive in any environment. Even adults with adequate skills who are exposed to AI workflows lose their edge very quickly, after a year or two at the most. A child who starts with tabula rasa would have no hope.

Only if they're not deaf and blind....

Everyone always forgets about Helen Keller....

Wouldn't a wannabe voyeur just match the frame rate to the strobe frequency?

There's plenty to fear from criminals using AI. The "killer app" of AI (is that even a thing anymore?) is human mimicry.

Speaking in someone else's voice. Impersonating someone in a photo or a video. Writing someone else's signature on a document. Retouching existing pictures and texts. Forging artistic works.

These are all that scammers and criminals have been wanting for millenia, and now Santa is giving it to them.

There's no scenario that leads to destruction, at worst we could get regression to a pre-AI world like the 1950s, or the 1350s if you're keen.

Millennials like to think that living in a pre-Internet world is a fate worse than death. If you want to see them hyperventilating, tell them they will have to sit next to a corded box called a "telephone" and speak with their voice instead of texting.

I suggest you buy a vial of smelling salts before you try that experiment.

Also: If he keeps up the talk of doom and gloom, then Amodei will be quite believable when he steps down and lets someone else direct Anthropic.

Whenever The Law approaches too closely for comfort, tech CEOs have a habit of stepping down and sideways into a less exposed role with low responsibility, but a controlling interest.

however, their physical facilities can be attacked by drones....

All of these are reasonable points. I would add one more: AI training on AI outputs.

The initial worry was that AI produced web content would be consumed by the next generation of AI causing model drift and collapse. Since then, AI companies have decided that daily user interactions are a source of clean signal that complements the web . But now that AI agents pretend to be humans, those "user" interactions will just lead to model collapse at a faster rate.

we...have...been...trying...

The sun is a deadly laser.

Not anymore, there's a blanket.

If Rust didn't encourage copypasta, why didn't they just vibe code those commans wit with claude? I suspect Anthropic would have gladly donated the tokens for a permanent MIT license credit. /s

It is similar to the current problem with AI and open source. Which isn't surprising, since the open source movement and Free software especially originated in academic circles. The issue in both cases is that a valuable resource has been created cooperatively, and the mechanism of enforcement of norms is purely social. Hence it is vulnerable to exploitation and sloppification by AI companies, which are deliberately not following any norms.

If someone has a solution, now would be a good time to start developing it. Otherwise I suspect the attacked communities will close off the commons to survive, and we will all be poorer for it.

We've had this conversation in excruciating detail before, about 6-9 months ago, and we've already established that you simply don't have the knowledge about Markov chains to have a meaningful discussion on LLMs. You're just wrong about this, and I'm not going to repeat myself.

Pretty much all of them so far. OpenAI is clearly looking to brute force science problems by hook and by crook and take credit wherever possible. They have a profitability deadline coming up, after all.

It's a good lesson, though. Don't talk to your AI like it's a confidante. It's a spy, and your secrets aren't safe. And when OpenAI goes bankrupt, your secrets will be sold to the next buyer.

Yup. The hookers make $500k/year, so it can't be them.

(the oldest profession will outlive AI replacement)